Where is the hope in atheism?

[super animator]

That was a direct answer, not a tangent.

I know one when I see one.

Abstract thinking is part of reality,

You are missing the point here by being nickpicky on the details.

 

[Silmarien]

I know one when I see one.


You are missing the point here by being nickpicky on the details.

You literally said that abstract thinking wasn't part of reality. If that wasn't your point, maybe you should have explained it in a way that didn't make it look insane. Unless that would have automatically entailed going off on a tangent.

Anyway, sorry for trying to answer your question. Next time I won't bother.

 

[Ana the Ist]

@Ana the Ist

We are clearly at cross-purposes. This will be my last reply to you in this thread. I am unconvinced that a fruitful discussion is possible.

1: I did not address your questions about "not getting bogged in semantics", because it would have done so if I had. You claimed witch-hunters were OT realists, so I showed you witch-hunting arose without any OT input of any sort. A mistranslation or understanding was later roped in, but the OT has little to do with the phenomenon. This is a circumferential idea anyway, as moral relativists are just as likely, if not more, to kill.

I made the claim they were realists...I offered up the OT as evidence, but didn't claim they were OT realists as you put it. Feel free to go back and check...

As for your comments about misinterpretation, I tried to steer you away from this argument because you're still wrong. Poisoner is one interpretation, herbalist is another. In either case, it seems evident we're speaking about someone who uses traditional medicine to make potions and the like...which is actually where many of the common witch-tropes come from. Whether we're talking about an old crone huddled over a cauldron....or riding a broom...these symbols have roots in traditional herbalist practices. The distinction you're trying to draw simply didn't exist in the mind of a medieval witch-burner....to them a poisoner/herbalist was a witch.

It's also been surmised that this is the very place where the biblical word-shift occurs.

2. Which brings us to the fact that we don't even seem to agree when someone is a relativist or realist. The Nazis called themselves relativists, they denied explicitly the existence of an absolute morality. Quote Hitler as much as you want, but context will make this clear.
The Nazis believed that the Aryan race was superior genetically to the Jewish. This was a 'realist' claim, but no moral position came in as of yet. They held that Supermen could transcend the limitations of morality placed upon them by the weak, in fact had a right to. In that way they would create the new morality according to their own Will. So the Nazis considered the Jews evil and their extermination a moral good, but by their own morality created according to their Will. This is a relativist position, though couched in the rules of moral or ethical behaviour, as they determined what this would be.

They did the same with Christianity, crafting a 'Positive Christianity' shorn of its 'negative' elements such as 'blessed are the meek' or Semitic elements. In this way, they could then paint it as dedicated to the German Volk, with Jesus as an Aryan opposing Jewish weakness. So you find many quotes of Hitler speaking good of Jesus or such, but what he means thereby has to be made plain. The Nazis aren't some weird Other, that somehow determined a heretofore hidden universal truth of evil Jews, but an outgrowth of 19th century moral relativism - in fact predicted to come to being by 19th century intellectuals like Dostoevsky and Nietsche.

Try as I might, I wasn't able to find one scholar who believed Hitler was a relativist...not one. My guess is that you didn't either since you haven't quoted any.

I could quote Hitler endlessly on this topic...but I'd rather not. He saw morality as intrinsically tied to race and culture. His was the one he deemed superior, and good...all others varying degrees of inferior, and evil.

3. I gave you the article on Conversion and Somatoform disorders and their historical classifications, to show that it has little connection to Mass Hysteria. It may elicit it though. So the fact that you couldn't find it there was exactly my point. And again, you linked no experts on the topic. It is not sociology that we were discussing. The only expert article linked was the one I linked, I am afraid.

Your article never mentions mass hysteria....but it does a great job explaining how the term hysteria was misused and applied inconsistently, as you and Silmarian have applied it, to any number of conditions...both real and imagined.

If you have any evidence you'd like to offer to support your position, I'm more than willing to consider it.

4. The Slave Trade arose from economic necessity. It was strenuously opposed by the Church, even by Archbishops of Mexico and prelates tasked with overseeing the New World. These were hardly unimportant naysayers. But Mammon often prevails, as occured in this case, and the Church had to come to terms with facts on the ground. It is a similar position to Catholicism opposing birth control or abortion - some churches or groups will buck the trend of the Church, siding with popular opinion, while Religious Tradition and Magisterium will dig in its heels. Read Hugh Thomas' excellent histories of the colonisation of Latin America and this will be plain..

Sure....economic need was the reason for slavery...but the church provided justification. Here you go...

Dum Diversas - Wikipedia

A papal bull consigning non-Christians to slavery....extended, renewed, and so on.

It's understandable that you'd like to downplay this....or revise history to make it out like the church opposed these things, but it's going to be a few thousand years before anyone can hope all the evidence on this matter has disappeared.

Till then everyone knows the truth.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Who determines the structure of an atom? On a naturalistic account of morality, cooperation is just an intrinsic part of any organizational system, whether at the cellular level or the societal level. Toss in conscious, rational thought and you would have a hard time justifying not acting accordingly.

No...you wouldn't.

 

[TLK Valentine]

The point is two or more subjective beings exist objectively and therefore objective morality exists. It’s objectively good to treat each other with love and kindness.

Remember that when you read the Old Testament.

Remember that in a war zone when you're staring across the battlefield.

Remember that when your Christian bretheren denounce Islam as "Satanic" and Muslims as "terrorists."

Remember that if you ever venture over into the politics forums and see how the Conservatives and Liberals (attempt to ) debate one another.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Who determines the structure of an atom? On a naturalistic account of morality, cooperation is just an intrinsic part of any organizational system, whether at the cellular level or the societal level. Toss in conscious, rational thought and you would have a hard time justifying not acting accordingly. Corruption isn't bad just because we don't like it--it does have a detrimental effect on a society. Social experiments do fail.

On a traditional theistic account of morality, on the other hand, the good doesn't emerge from the natural order, but is itself the underlying nature of reality from which everything that exists has its origin. But I really don't think atheists should get too worked up over the theistic side of things. Stick to atheistic moral realism.

I usually argue for naturalistic moral realism, but for something different, here's a taste of WLC's favorite enemy, Atheistic Moral Platonism: In Defense of Non-natural, Non-theistic Moral Realism

Eating meat -- sinful, or not?

 

[Silmarien]

Eating meat -- sinful, or not?

I already answered this.

Also, I'm not a professing Christian and 2/3 of what I said was from an explicitly atheistic perspective, so "sinful" is a weird word to use here.

Remember that if you ever venture over into the politics forums and see how the Conservatives and Liberals (attempt to ) debate one another.

Yeah. It's pretty much a trainwreck. Objectively. If we treated each other like human beings, everyone would be better off. If you think that the total breakdown of communication is evidence that it's not objectively better to treat one another decently, I don't know what to say to you. It's pretty clear to me that this political environment doesn't work.

 

[TLK Valentine]

I already answered this.

You told me the "traditional Christian answer." I want the objective morality folks are claiming exists.

 

[Silmarien]

You told me the "traditional Christian answer." I want the objective morality folks are claiming exists.

The second half of my post was not the traditional Christian response. I'm less keen on the idea of humans having dominion over animals than the Bible is, though that could be because modern culture and our distance from our source of food is clouding my judgment on this issue.

Most moral realists aren't claiming the type of "objective morality" you think we are. Just because we don't think it's merely subjective doesn't mean it's codified somewhere. I'm pretty cool just saying that compassion leads to genuine wellbeing, and wandering around hating everyone is going to rebound and make you miserable. Good luck subjectively deciding that nursing grudges is going to cause you to prosper emotionally.

 

[Ana the Ist]

The second half of my post was not the traditional Christian response. I'm less keen on the idea of humans having dominion over animals than the Bible is, though that could be because modern culture and our distance from our source of food is clouding my judgment on this issue.

I read your answer, and I'll admit I'm curious why you believe that the manner of an animal's death makes any difference when it's destination is on your plate regardless. Is there anything that makes hunting and fishing more objectively good?

I'm pretty cool just saying that compassion leads to genuine wellbeing, and wandering around hating everyone is going to rebound and make you miserable. Good luck subjectively deciding that nursing grudges is going to cause you to prosper emotionally.

An easy thing to say when you live a soft life of easy circumstances....but what if you're in a difficult place of rough circumstances?

Is a prisoner, in a US prison, going to have "genuine wellbeing" by acting with compassion to all those in his community?

Or is it far more likely to lead to him being used, abused, and possibly injured/killed?

 

[apogee]

Is a prisoner, in a US prison, going to have "genuine wellbeing" by acting with compassion to all those in his community?

Or is it far more likely to lead to him being used, abused, and possibly injured/killed?

Do you suppose that a prisoner is less human by virtue of being a prisoner? Or just that compassion is a weakness rather than a strength?

 

[Ana the Ist]

Do you suppose that a prisoner is less human by virtue if being a prisoner?

I can't even imagine why you would ask this....care to expand upon this question?

Or just that compassion is a weakness rather than a strength?

In prison? Undoubtedly. There may be brief moments...once in a great while....where compassion may be useful, but for the most part it will mark you as prey to a bunch of predators, and a liability to all others.

Prison is one of multiple environments where compassion will definitely not lead to genuine wellbeing.

 

[apogee]

I can't even imagine why you would ask this....care to expand upon this question?

Not really, other than that prisons are not necessarily devoid of compassion any more than prisoners are, it might look different, and be less publicly displayed, but I don't see any reason why it would be absent.

In prison? Undoubtedly. There may be brief moments...once in a great while....where compassion may be useful, but for the most part it will mark you as prey to a bunch of predators, and a liability to all others.

If compassion is simply 'useful' then I would not really consider it compassion.

Prison is one of multiple environments where compassion will definitely not lead to genuine wellbeing.

I've never been incarcerated, and I have no desire to find out, and I would agree that the public display of compassion may well mark you as prey, but it's absence will simply mark you out as worthless, to those who might otherwise defend you, so choose your poison.

In any event, I would dispute the idea that compassion is ever an actual weakness, and it certainly would require far more strength to maintain it, than to rid yourself of it.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Not really, other than that prisons are not necessarily devoid of compassion any more than prisoners are, it might look different, and be less publicly displayed, but I don't see any reason why it would be absent.

I take it you've never been inside a prison or known anyone who has.

If compassion is simply 'useful' then I would not really consider it compassion.

Useful for someone's wellbeing.

I've never been incarcerated, and I have no desire to find out, and I would agree that the public display of compassion may well mark you as prey, but it's absence will simply mark you out as worthless, to those who might otherwise defend you, so choose your poison.

If this is what you believe...best stay out of prison.

In any event, I would dispute the idea that compassion is ever an actual weakness, and it certainly would require far more strength to maintain it, than to rid yourself of it.

That's nice...but we're talking about a person's wellbeing. Being compassionate won't help when you're being raped or having your head stomped in.

 

[TLK Valentine]

The second half of my post was not the traditional Christian response. I'm less keen on the idea of humans having dominion over animals than the Bible is, though that could be because modern culture and our distance from our source of food is clouding my judgment on this issue.

You made this clear -- however, this is not what I asked.

You claimed objective morality exists -- noting that I don't disagree, I wanted to see it applied to a real-world scenario.

Most moral realists aren't claiming the type of "objective morality" you think we are. Just because we don't think it's merely subjective doesn't mean it's codified somewhere. I'm pretty cool just saying that compassion leads to genuine wellbeing, and wandering around hating everyone is going to rebound and make you miserable. Good luck subjectively deciding that nursing grudges is going to cause you to prosper emotionally.

Fair enough.

 

[apogee]

I take it you've never been inside a prison or known anyone who has.

I've been inside a prison and have known people who have been imprisoned.

If this is what you believe...best stay out of prison.

I have every intention to stay out of prison.

That's nice...but we're talking about a person's wellbeing. Being compassionate won't help when you're being raped or having your head stomped in.

No, neither will being a 'prick'. However someone else having compassion (or even me having compassion for someone else) and then subsequently intervening on this basis, might. (don't mistake compassion for passivity)

 

[Ana the Ist]

I've been inside a prison and have known people who have been imprisoned.



I have every intention to stay out of prison.



No, neither will being a 'prick'. However someone else having compassion (or even me having compassion for someone else) and then subsequently intervening on this basis, might. (don't mistake compassion for passivity)

Which is something which rarely happens in prison. Simply put, if those in prison shared your view of compassion... then prisoners would generally be treating each other with compassion. Instead, its viewed as weakness... and quickly causes one to be victimized. The general rule it s that prisoners come out as worse criminals than when they came in...and its because they have to suppress emotions like compassion specifically for their wellbeing.

 

[apogee]

Which is something which rarely happens in prison. Simply put, if those in prison shared your view of compassion... then prisoners would generally be treating each other with compassion. Instead, its viewed as weakness... and quickly causes one to be victimized. The general rule it s that prisoners come out as worse criminals than when they came in...and its because they have to suppress emotions like compassion specifically for their wellbeing.

Rather than ask you whether you have any direct experience of this. I'm simply going to assume the above is correct, in that having to "suppress emotions like compassion" because "its viewed as weakness" results in prisoners who "come out as worse criminals than when they came in".

Then it's difficult to argue that having to suppress emotions like compassion specifically for their (immediate) wellbeing, is having a good effect on (long term) wellbeing.

Which would indicate that in a rather general sense, you would agree with Silmarien.

 

[super animator]

You literally said that abstract thinking wasn't part of reality.

Once again, you miss the forest by focusing on the trees. I not the one who can't tell any difference between abstract thinking and reality.

 

[Silmarien]

You claimed objective morality exists -- noting that I don't disagree, I wanted to see it applied to a real-world scenario.

Well, I didn't. I intentionally avoid the word "objective" for the most part, because it clouds the waters in ways that I think are unhelpful. I'm a virtue ethicist; I don't believe that there are objective moral duties and obligations out there, but I also don't believe that human evolution has left us with a blank slate which we can write over with whatever subjective approach to valuation we want. Shove your hand in a hornet's nest and you'll get stung; decide that the strong should prey upon the weak and that'll have consequences too. Of the psychological sort, at the very least. If relativists dig themselves into a hole where they have to say there's no difference between mental health and mental illness aside from which of the two we subjectively like better, they're in trouble.

But yeah, for your question about eating meat, I frankly think that in the very act of eating anything, including plants, we're taking part in a sacrificial based ecological system and the only perfectly moral thing to do would be to photosynthesize, which is obviously not an option. Failing that, I would only call out the meat industry as a genuine moral issue.